Slashdot Mirror
Time Warner Confirms Split With AOL
ausekilis writes "Many outlets are reporting that Time Warner has confirmed plans to spin off AOL. All that's left to deal with are a few financial hurdles, such as buying out Google's 5% stake in AOL. The interesting part of the story is that both AOL's CEO and Time Warner's CEO said effectively the same thing, that AOL will be better off as an independent unit, as opposed to 'a cog in the Time Warner wheel.' Interesting to note that when they originally merged, the idea was for AOL to be a one-stop shop for all your internet goods. Makes you wonder what would have happened if Time Warner had invested in AOL as an exclusive media outlet for movies, TV, music, etc. Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters."
Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore ? Time Warner might be thinking along those lines..
> Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it
> once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters.
Was it ever anything else? (I didn't actually get very many, though.)
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I agree with those at America Online that think that as of now, it's best suited for a vertical move to social networking. It's internet connectivity model has been stagnant for a long time, but it's social networking features are strong and have room to improve. (AIM is the quintessential example of this.)
However, I feel bad for those that still work at the company, and users still chained to their internet services for some reason or other.
...AOL as an exclusive media outlet for movies...
Over dial-up, I think it would have been cheaper to GO to Hollywood (plus it might be finished downloading when you return)!
*this space intentionally left blank
"One of the four pointers saying 'come and see', and I saw, and beheld a white
About the only thing that AOL really has that are of any worth are AIM and a few blogs such as Engdaget. Other then that they have ruined their reputation too much to be profitable in any other thing.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Plenty can be said about the cons of AOL such as the software being classified as a virus. There was a time period from 1996-2003 when AOL chat rooms had hundreds of thousands of participants 24 hours a day. For us introverts it was a social mecca.
... and so is a bankruptcy filling. To save effort and energy, they might as well do both at the same time.
(Disclosure: I saw this post on a different blog, and I'm blatantly stealing it.. ah, now my conscience feels better)
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
In my day they sent out floppy disks. You know, the kind that could be erased and something useful put on them. It was great!
"Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore?"
There was never a need for all-inclusive portals after the arrival of the internet. AOL was trying to keep less-knowledgeable people inside its own sites, and away from the internet, so it could make more money from its ads. For years, and I suppose even now, an AOL email address meant that the owner of the address didn't have any technically knowledgeable friends.
The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been considered to be the worst business decision of all time. Maybe the French selling the Louisiana Purchase to the U.S. government was a worse decision. But, if we include decisions made by government, then even the U.S. invading Iraq lost more money.
At the time, even people with little technical knowledge knew that AOL was not a good company to buy.
Time Warner's CEO, Gerald M. Levin, who made the decision, called himself an "imperial CEO". He made huge amounts of money, and didn't seem to care that he caused enormous troubles for his company, and for all its employees that owned stock.
Just before the merger, Ted Turner called the merger "better than sex". The problem continues, of course. People with no technical knowledge assume that, if they don't know something, there is nothing to know. Technically knowledgeable people get amazingly little respect.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601892.html
Essentially Google gave AOL a lifeline so they (Google) could penetrate further into the online advertising market.
was mostly to people who couldn't figure out how to set up their Dialup account for Internet Access. One AOL install CD and they were on the Internet. Plus they had access to the Time/Warner media empire via the AOL search engine.
But now most operating systems have Wizards to guide ISP setup just as easy as the AOL Install CD and most Broadband ISPS have install CDs to set up DSL/Cable Modems and Routers. Plus the media is all over the Internet and not just in an AOL search database. So really what need is there for AOL anymore?
The only advantage for AOL is for those people who cannot get broadband but need a local call-in number that most other ISP's don't offer. I remember bringing my laptop to Branson, Missouri and my NetZero Free Internet dial-up account on my laptop could not get a local Branson number (From Branson for some reason calling Springfield and Joplin numbers where toll access at the Time Sharing Condos and are considered long distance and hence charged more on the bill even if they are in the same area code), but the people at the Time Sharing Condo said that AOL had several local numbers that work with their AOL software.
But now with USB G3 based modems you can get an Internet connection almost anywhere for $40/month or lower. Plus many places offer free Wifi. So there isn't much need for dial-up access local numbers anymore. Cricket has a pay as you go plan, so you can pay for G3 access before you go on vacation and have a whole month to use it.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
"Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters."
They were ever anything else?
I always saw AOL as the online service for people who didn't want to type. Was there ever a time AOL had, like, actual street cred?
It was AOL who bought Time-Warner: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-235400.html
www.gaiageek.com
Isn't that _backwards_? I mean, I know AOL is a laughingstock now, but they paid $164 billion to purchase Time-Warner in 2001. AOL bought Time-Warner, not the other way around. Doesn't the owner spin off the subsidiary?
It was a brilliant move by them at the time to turn Internet bubble money into real money.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
I gotta say that AOL was destined to fail for the same reason GM and Enron and sub prime lenders crashed: Its a RAW DEAL. I was a VERY EARLY adopter of AOL. Back in the day of floppy mailers (way before CD) I was already on a local BBS (Nitelog now Redshift.com) with my brand new 486 with math co processor, Windows 3.0 and an new super blinding fast 14.4 modem (maybe lower) and I thought it was go cool to be able to leave the dos 5 command line, and be in GUI land. But honestly, my enthusiasm for AOL decayed into resentment. Soon these jerks were like the phone company, the bad checking account, or fine print on the policy or credit. Like every other corporate pig in America, it became a finely tuned rip off and maze of obfuscation. There billing practices were ridiculous: you could open accounts all day without any obstacle, but to close an account and get them off of your checking account you had to wait on hold for hours, and then do it again month after month. But worse than that, AOL treated the internet like there own property, and they had many Americans fooled into thinking that the service and experience was entirely proprietary. People who were unsophisticated or inexperienced would pay their rip off $23.95/month (or $2/hour for some suckers) because they were misled into thinking that was their only way to keep email and access to websites. For YEARS they persisted to ever charge, over bill, refuse to cancel service in a timely fashion. There were literally THOUSANDS of "WHY AOL SUCKS" websites popping up everywhere. I really resented the wool that they pooled over many peoples eyes...but how long did they think they could get away with it ? Did they actually expect customers to stay when suddenly Net Zero and a bunch of other dial ups were FREE by the mid 90's? Steve Case cashed in and sold out. He was no Ted Turner. But Corporate American Media had an appetite to EXPLOIT the customer and so that merger was a marriage mad in hell. Severs them right for screwing everyone over, they get screwed too. Its another Web Van, in the end. Only Web Van was good to their customers...the 10 of us. Look at the corporate landscape now: only monopolies retain their customers...but not forever. I dumped Sprint Cellular, Microsoft, Comcast, and B of A, and Visa, AT&T, GM, GE, and Exxon for the same reason: I'm tired of the fine print, the add on fees, and the policy to always punish regular customers for being dumb enough to stay. Good rates are reserved for strangers or stolen business, but if you're a regular then MAKE THEM PAY. Well, these jerks got rich for a while, but I'll avoid ever doing business with them. When did American Business ethics degrade to the point where screwing the customer is the long range strategy and any value offered is a tactic like bait on a hook. Are we all numb in the head? Don't do business with parasites. Just because we have a debt economy doesn't mean we have to take that crap from them ever. Grow up shareholders: if we don't get value, then neither will you. Its simple, its the Golden Rule. AOL, A-hole-hell, good riddance.